Iraq to US...we want a timetable for withdrawal....

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: OrByte
A timetable?!?

how dare Iraq ask for a timetable!!?!?

So what is the whitehouses official response?

This is not 2004. Maybe we have stayed long enough, four years later.

You know the white house was also vehemently against a timetable as early as last year too right?

including every single time a spending bill, or any other bill wherein a timetable is attached, was passed through congress.

wasn't there one such bill earlier THIS year?

 

[Jhhnn]

Either way, I very much look forward to the day when our presence in Iraq is reduced to a number similar to our troop strength in Germany or Korea.

Heh. Looks like the Iraqis want our troop strength reduced to the number of Marines necessary to protect the Embassy, if that...

The surge worked? Or maybe the Bushies just decided to lay off of the "Salvador Option" of handing out free guns&ammo, pointing the various factions at each other...

No matter what, the Bushies dreams of a puppet govt willing to act as a staging area for crusades against others in the region are pretty much dust...

And, in case nobody else noticed, the oil (giveaway) deal remains unsigned... The Bush Admin isn't going anywhere w/o that...

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: Engineer
Click me!

Well, maybe it's finally time to end this stinking mess of a war. With the improvements in Iraqi daily life and security and now this from the prime minister, it's time to pack it up and start pulling out. Of course, there will be many here that just cringe at the thought of leaving though.

I do not cringe at the idea of leaving -- in fact, I'd welcome it with open arms immediately -- but, I'm still very strongly opposed to any form of a publicly released timetable.

It could be done much more quietly and still result in a timely withdrawal... then again, nobody in senior leadership seems to be able to keep a fucking secret these days, especially when lives are at stake, so I doubt it would remain quiet for very long...

Either way, I very much look forward to the day when our presence in Iraq is reduced to a number similar to our troop strength in Germany or Korea. :thumbsup:

I look forward to the day when our troop level is that of the Marine Contingent guarding the Embassy and when the war in Iraq is not a business opportunity.

Our presence in every country is a business opportunity of some sort for someone.

I was hoping to get at least 1 tour in Iraq before the US drew troop levels down to the 40,000 range.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: palehorse
-snip-
....but, I'm still very strongly opposed to any form of a publicly released timetable.

I am sympathetic to opposition to releasing a timetable, if for the right reasons.

However, I think one must acknowledge that no matter the outcome, there WILL at some point be a timetable for withdrawal.

The argument against releasing a timetable in the mist of the battle is a valid one, it gives too much ammo (whether tactically or morally) to the enemy. However, when you get to the point where you've either won or lost, that ammo is no longer relevant.

But I see no need to release great detail publicly, nor do I have a problem with anouncing some generalities concerning a withdrawal; particularly not under these circumstances (We appear to win, and the Iraqi's are confident of their abilities). Sure, some may point out that the terrorists can lay low until we're gone and then strike back. But realisticly, they can always do that because at some point we WILL be gone. It's inevitable.

And we can't simply just sneak out one night, with everyone suddenly noticing our absense only come morning. Nor do I see any great disadvantage that causes the enemy if we could.

Fern

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn

And, in case nobody else noticed, the oil (giveaway) deal remains unsigned... The Bush Admin isn't going anywhere w/o that...

Whats this about?

 

[Lemon law]

Its still their country and maybe its time to take them up on their offer. On one hand, if we leave right now, its almost inevitable that other equally greedy countries will rush in and grab their share of the spoils.

But I propose another plan, totally withdraw from Iraq, but leave enough ready troops based somewhere like Kuwait to guarantee that no other country can invade Iraq. We can camp in the shade of Kuwaiti oil derricks and camp in total comfort for far less than we now spend.

Off course all them cush US oil deals and contracts would be null and void, but GWB himself told me, Iraq is not about the oil.

Please to not tell me to disbelieve honest GWB, I know he would never never lie.

 

[Dari]

I'm willing to bet anyone that Al Maliki will be out of power by the end of the year. The man just doesn't respect Bush's (and McCain's) fantasy of staying forever.

 

[Jhhnn]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Jhhnn

And, in case nobody else noticed, the oil (giveaway) deal remains unsigned... The Bush Admin isn't going anywhere w/o that...

Whats this about?

http://www.globalpolicy.org/se.../2005/crudedesigns.htm

 

[First]

Originally posted by: loki8481
good news for republicans, maybe.

This is good news for everyone in this country. But if anyone does not benefit from it, it's Republicans and the administration.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: eskimospy
You know the white house was also vehemently against a timetable as early as last year too right?

including every single time a spending bill, or any other bill wherein a timetable is attached, was passed through congress.

wasn't there one such bill earlier THIS year?

The White House stands alone.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Genx87
We are idiots if we dont take them up on their offer.

:thumbsup:

Does anyone else find it odd that this provides us with a clear opportunity to declare Iraq a victory, and yet Bush opposes it? What does that mean, I wonder? What could possibly be more important to him than the chance to be the President who won the war?

Does Bush oppose this or has Bush opposed this? The article does not clarify this at all. With continued talks of increased security and stability and continued talks of troop drawdowns I can hardly find any reason why it would be currently opposed.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Genx87
We are idiots if we dont take them up on their offer.

:thumbsup:

Does anyone else find it odd that this provides us with a clear opportunity to declare Iraq a victory, and yet Bush opposes it? What does that mean, I wonder? What could possibly be more important to him than the chance to be the President who won the war?

Does Bush oppose this or has Bush opposed this? The article does not clarify this at all. With continued talks of increased security and stability and continued talks of troop drawdowns I can hardly find any reason why it would be currently opposed.

I bolded the exerpt from the article that indicated that Bush opposes this. Not sure why or from where they obtained this idea (other than Bush's constant rheoritic on "NO TIMETABLES" for Iraq withdrawl)...

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Genx87
We are idiots if we dont take them up on their offer.

:thumbsup:

Does anyone else find it odd that this provides us with a clear opportunity to declare Iraq a victory, and yet Bush opposes it? What does that mean, I wonder? What could possibly be more important to him than the chance to be the President who won the war?

Does Bush oppose this or has Bush opposed this? The article does not clarify this at all. With continued talks of increased security and stability and continued talks of troop drawdowns I can hardly find any reason why it would be currently opposed.

I bolded the exerpt from the article that indicated that Bush opposes this. Not sure why or from where they obtained this idea (other than Bush's constant rheoritic on "NO TIMETABLES" for Iraq withdrawl)...

For the most part he has been right on this(i know you and I disagree here), as the democrats have been for timetables and damn the consequences of leaving to early. Itaq currently will have little interest in us leaving to early as they will have live with the consequences and that is why is am puzzled by the statement.

 

[lupi]

This doesn't jive with the new new BHO iraq policy so I'm sure it will change.

 

[ayabe]

Well looks like we have to parse Mailiki's words now as there must have been a mistranslation, :disgust:

"Asked about the prime minister?s comments today, Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman hedged on whether the administration would follow the Iraqi government?s request, criticizing timelines as ?artificial?:

WHITMAN: It is dependent on conditions on the ground. ? But timelines tend to be artificial in nature. In a situation where things are as dynamic as they are in Iraq, I would just tell you, it?s usually best to look at these things based on conditions on the ground.

The State Department also hedged on whether the Bush administration would listen to Maliki. In a briefing today, spokesperson Sean McCormack said the remark may have been a transcription error:

McCORMACK: Well, that?s really the part ? the point at which I would seek greater clarification in terms of remarks. I?ve seen the same press reports that you have, but I haven?t yet had an opportunity to get greater clarify as to exactly to what Mr. Maliki was referring or if, in fact, that?s an accurate reporting of what he said."

Text

We don't really want out, and by we I mean the people who have a vested interest in us staying. What the rest of us want doesn't really seem to matter and "they" would likely stay there even if it meant complete economic collapse.

As a side note McSame's handlers released this yesterday, ?The McCain administration would reserve all savings from victory in the Iraq and Afghanistan operations in the fight against Islamic extremists for reducing the deficit. Since all their costs were financed with deficit spending, all their savings must go to deficit reduction.?

What a stunning statement to make, all of the money we are borrowing from China to fund the wars...well once we declare victory we can then borrow more money from China to pay......China. WTF are we talking about here?

The bottom line is that we can't afford to stay, they want us to leave, the choice is easy. TIME TO GO.

 

[RKDaley]

Pres. GW Bush: We are there at the invitation of the Iraqi government. This is a sovereign nation. Twelve million people went to the polls to approve a constitution. It?s their government?s choice. If they were to say, leave, we would leave.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news.../2007/05/20070524.html

So I guess since Maliki wants a timetable, we will take him up on that, right....right?

 

[MegaWorks]

Timetable? hehehe maybe 90 years if they're lucky!

Iraq is a super strategic country for US, and I believe both the republicans and the democrats agree to that. Sorry friends but America is going nowhere.

 

[Engineer]

Iraq insists on withdrawal timetable.

BAGHDAD - Iraq's national security adviser said Tuesday his country will not accept any security deal with the United States unless it contains specific dates for the withdrawal of U.S.-led forces.

ADVERTISEMENT

The comments by Mouwaffak al-Rubaie were the strongest yet by an Iraqi official about the deal now under negotiation with U.S. officials. They came a day after Iraq's prime minister first said publicly that he expects the pending troop deal with the United States to have some type of timetable for withdrawal.

President Bush has said he opposes a timetable. The White House said Monday it did not believe Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was proposing a rigid timeline for U.S. troop withdrawals.

U.S. officials had no immediate comment Tuesday on al-Rubaie's statement.

Al-Rubaie spoke to reporters after briefing Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani in Najaf on the progress of the government's security efforts and the talks.

"Our stance in the negotiations underway with the American side will be strong ... We will not accept any memorandum of understanding that doesn't have specific dates to withdraw foreign forces from Iraq," al-Rubaie said.

He provided no details. But Ali al-Adeeb, a Shiite lawmaker and a prominent official in the prime minister's party, told The Associated Press that Iraq was linking the timetable proposal to the ongoing handover of various provinces to Iraqi control.

The Iraqi proposal stipulates that, once Iraqi forces have resumed security responsibility in all 18 of Iraq's provinces, U.S.-led forces would then withdraw from all cities in the country.

After that, the country's security situation would be reviewed every six months, for three to five years, to decide when U.S.-led troops would pull out entirely, al-Adeeb said.

So far, the United States has handed control of nine of 18 provinces to Iraqi officials.

"This is what the Iraqi people want, the parliament and other Iraqi leaders," said al-Adeeb.

The proposal, as outlined by al-Adeeb, is phrased in a way that would allow Iraqi officials to tell the Iraqi public that it includes a specific timetable and dates for a U.S. withdrawal.

However, it also would provide the United States some flexibility on timing because the dates of the provincial handovers are not set.

Some type of troop status agreement between the United States and Iraq is needed to keep U.S. troops in Iraq after a U.N. mandate expires at year's end.

Iraq's government has felt increasingly confident in recent weeks about its authority and the country's improved stability. Iraqi officials have sharpened their public stance in the negotiations considerably in just the last few days.

Violence in Iraq has fallen to its lowest level in four years. The change has been driven by the 2007 buildup of American forces, the Sunni tribal revolt against al-Qaida in Iraq and crackdowns against Shiite militias and Sunni extremists.

In northern Baghdad Tuesday, guards opened fire, wounding 13 people when a crowd seeking aid payments for the poor, widows, orphans and disabled people became unruly, Iraqi officials said.

The U.S. military said a soldier had died from injuries sustained when a roadside bomb hit a troop convoy in Baghdad.

The U.S. military says five other soldiers were wounded in Tuesday's attack in the western Baghdad neighborhood of Amiriyah.

___________

Associated Press reporters Qassim Abdul-Zahra in Baghdad and Abdul-Hussein al-Obeidi in Najaf contributed to this report.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: lupi
This doesn't jive with the new new BHO iraq policy so I'm sure it will change.

Way to stay on topic... :roll:

 

[Jebeelzabub]

Originally posted by: Nebor



Our presence in every country is a business opportunity of some sort for someone.

I was hoping to get at least 1 tour in Iraq before the US drew troop levels down to the 40,000 range.

Why? What do you hope to gain from a tour in Iraq? Why would it be disappointing to take your tour of Iraq when things have calmed down to a point where we only had 40,000 troops there?

Regards,

Jebeelzabub

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: RKDaley

Pres. GW Bush: We are there at the invitation of the Iraqi government. This is a sovereign nation. Twelve million people went to the polls to approve a constitution. It?s their government?s choice. If they were to say, leave, we would leave.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news.../2007/05/20070524.html

So I guess since Maliki wants a timetable, we will take him up on that, right....right?

I posted the same quote earlier and I'm still hearing crickets. Apparently, none of those that support Bush or the presence of US troops in Iraq want to talk about his statements when they contradict his actions.

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: lupi
This doesn't jive with the new new BHO iraq policy so I'm sure it will change.

Way to stay on topic... :roll:

I've had a lot of training in watching the majority here constantly manage to input bush into every topic.

 

[Engineer]

Bush flip-flops...agrees to timeline to start bringing more troops home.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Engineer
Bush flip-flops...agrees to timeline to start bringing more troops home.

Time horizon = timeline?

This "timeline" would be conditional on the status of Iraqi forces, as I've stated time and time again in this thread. Not only that, but as the article states:

The announcement Friday put Bush in the position of offering to talk with Iraqi leaders about a politically charged issue that he adamantly has refused to discuss with the Democratic-led Congress at home.

Talking to the Iraqi government, who Bush has also said that when they ask we will leave, about setting a conditional drawdown and eventual withdrawal is not the same as rebuffing political grandstanding and pandering from the Democratic side of the aisle.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Engineer
Bush flip-flops...agrees to timeline to start bringing more troops home.

Time horizon = timeline?

This "timeline" would be conditional on the status of Iraqi forces, as I've stated time and time again in this thread. Not only that, but as the article states:

The announcement Friday put Bush in the position of offering to talk with Iraqi leaders about a politically charged issue that he adamantly has refused to discuss with the Democratic-led Congress at home.

Talking to the Iraqi government, who Bush has also said that when they ask we will leave, about setting a conditional drawdown and eventual withdrawal is not the same as rebuffing political grandstanding and pandering from the Democratic side of the aisle.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hehehehe haw haw haw, that is a hell of a a laugh. GWB has only six months to go, and after that, what GWB&co wants will be totally irrelevant. Everyone with an ounce of brains on the entire planet knows that GWB will (a) Fail to solve any Iraqi problems. (b) The winner of the American election in 08 will be the the ones to talk to. And that TLC, is likely to be a democratic sweep (c) The only people GWB&co fool meanwhile are GWB&co.

Get a clue TLC, GWB&co are so lame, everyone gave up on them up as hopeless long ago.